Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1908; 2006(5)ALD51(SC); 129(2006)DLT719(SC); [2007(1)JCR110(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC168; 2006(2)KLT700(SC); RLW2006(3)SC2129; 2006(5)SCALE1; (2006)5SCC603; [2006]145STC57
Ruma Pal, J.1. By an order dated 13th October, 1999 in Sunrise Associates v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. : (2000)10SCC420 , the decisions of this Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu : AIR1986SC63 as well as Vikas Sales Tax Corporation and Anr. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anr. : 1997(57)ECC1 (in so far as it affirmed the decision in the H. Anraj) have been referred to this Bench for re-consideration.2. The question in H. Anraj was whether sales tax can be levied by States on the sale of lottery tickets. A bench of two-Judges held that a lottery involved (i) the right to participate in the lottery draw, and (ii) the right to win the prize, depending on chance. The learned Judges were of the opinion that while' the second right was a chose in action and therefore not 'goods' for the purposes of the levy of Sales Tax, the first; was a transfer of a beneficial interest in moveable goods and was a sale within the meaning of Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2432; 2006(4)ALD66(SC); 2006(3)AWC2187(SC); JT2006(5)SC260; (2006)4MLJ135(SC); 2006(5)SCALE107; (2006)8SCC129
ORDER For fixation of seniority of Shri Sushil Chandra Dwivedi, Assistant Engineer in Authority Centralised Services, the Government Order No. 416912/9Aa-5-91/94 dated 6.11.95 with respect to inclusion of service rendered by him in State Planning Institute was not found legal in view of Rule 7(1) of Authority Centralised Services Rules. Consequently, after consideration, the said order dated 6.1.95 is hereby cancelled.2. As a result, in Authority Centralised Services on the post of Assistant Engineer, in the Seniority list declared vide Government Order No. 1596/9 Aa-5-95- 1235/95 dated 12.4.96, the seniority of Shri Dwivedi is ordered by the Governor to be fixed below Shri Anil Kumar Goel shown at serial no. 64 and in order of seniority at serial no. 6 above Shri Ramesh Kumar at serial 64A in order of seniority.IllegibleChief Secretary4. The Respondents herein, admittedly, resigned from their services from U.P. Jal Nigam. The Respondent No. 2 accepted the said offer of the State in te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2324; [2006(109)FLR1085]; JT2007(10)SC126; (2006)IILLJ756SC; RLW2006(4)SC2605; 2006(5)SCALE161; (2006)9SCC691; 2006(3)SLJ454(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur allowing the D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 617 of 2003 filed by the respondent. By the impugned order the High Court held as follows:In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order of termination dated 8th August, 1995 suffers from the procedural error leading to the manifest injustice or the vice of violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, special appeal is allowed. The order of the leaned Single Judge dated 22nd July, 2003 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 3rd August, 1995 - Annexure-1 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.12.1995 - Annexure-2 are quashed and set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.On 27.9.2004 notice was issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2100; [2006(109)FLR1088]; [2006(3)JCR305(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC131; (2006)IILLJ1038SC; 2006(4)SCALE600; (2006)5SCC65
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The appellants impugn the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna which struck down an Act of the State Legislature styled as 'The Bihar State Government Employees Revision of Pension, Family Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (Validation and Enforcement) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Validation Act') on the ground that it was enacted to frustrate, sidetrack and avoid an earlier decision of the High Court.2. A notification, Resolution No. P.C.I. -Id/S7-1853-F dated 19.4.1990, was issued by the State Government relating to provisions regulating Pension and Death cum Retirement gratuity pursuant to the recommendations of a Special Committee known as 'Fitment-cum-Pay Revision Committee'. The notification declared that, after considering the recommendations of the aforesaid Committee, the State Government, after due deliberations, had decided to revise the provisions regulating Pension, Family Pension and Death-cum-R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2105; JT2006(5)SC154; (2006)IILLJ787SC; 2006(4)SCALE656; (2006)5SCC153; 2006(3)SLJ291(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two appeals arise between the same parties and are interconnected. Hence, they can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The appellants are the legal representatives of one D.C. Aggarwal, an erstwhile employee of the respondent-State Bank of India, who have brought these appeals claiming: (a) the benefits of an extension in service of the said D.C. Aggarwal up to the age of sixty years; and (b) the benefits arising out of notional promotion which ought to have been granted to the said employee, etc. For the purpose of convenience, the said D.C. Aggarwal shall be referred to as 'the appellant' in the course of our judgment.Background to the Promotion Issue3. The appellant joined the respondent-bank as Probationary Officer on 15.1.1960. He got repeated promotions during the period 1960-1980, reaching all the way to Top Executive Grade Scale VI (hereinafter 'TEGS VI') as a Deputy General Manager on 27.7.1980. On 4.1.1981, the appellant was posted as Deputy Gen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(6)SC120; 2006(4)MPHT218
ORDER1. The appellant herein was charged with commission of an offence under Section 376 of the IPC for committing rape on a minor girl Sushama. Her parents are labourers. They had been occupying a portion of the premises belonging to the father of the appellant herein, as tenant. On 2.1.1995, they had gone out of their house in search of work. Sushama was all alone in the house. The appellant taking advantage of the absence of the parents of the prosecutrix, came there, took her to Tapariya, put off her Chaddi and he also pulled down his trousers and sat upon her. When her grandfather came, he fled away. When the parents of Sushama came back, they were informed about the said incident by her. The mother of the prosecutrix had seen redness in her private part as also blood coming out therefrom.2. First Information Report was lodged on the next day i.e. on 3.1.1995. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and one Dr. Smt. Sunita Jain examined her. The said doctor was examined b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)205CTR(SC)122; [2006]284ITR434(SC)
ORDERThe appeals are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2081; [2007]135CompCas180(SC); (2006)IIILLJ1SC; (2006)144PLR65; 2006(5)SCALE424; (2006)5SCC319; [2006]68SCL165(SC); 2007(1)SLJ131(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. The State of Uttar Pradesh is the appellant in these appeals. Civil Appeal No. 6176/1999 has been preferred against the order of the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIFR') dated 28.8.1998 whereby it directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to make on account payment to the workers towards their wages for the period June, 1998 on wards on humanitarian grounds. Civil Appeal Nos. 6171-6172/1999 has been preferred against the order of the High Court of Delhi whereby the writ petition preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of BIFR dated 27.8.1997, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 6.5.1998, was rejected. Civil Appeal No. 6217/1999 has been preferred against the interim order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow dated 23.12.1998 directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay salary to the workers of M/s. UPTRON, as directed by the BIFR till the State Government ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2056; [2007(1)JCR237(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC295; (2006)IILLJ899SC; 2006(4)SCALE612; (2006)9SCC488
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 22724 of 2004 and 5071 of 2005.2. These appeals have a common matrix. By the impugned judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court three appeals were disposed of. Writ Appeal No. 761 of 1992 was against order dated 22.7.91 passed in Writ Petition No. 11956 of 1987 passed by a learned Single Judge, while Writ Appeal No. 760 of 1997 was against the order dated 24.2.1997 in Writ Petition No. 1063 of 1988 passed by a learned Single Judge. The third appeal before the Division Bench was Contempt Appeal No. 13 of 1992 directed against order dated 11.12.1992 in Contempt Application No. 336 of 1992 passed by learned Single Judge.3. Factual background as highlighted by the appellant- Management of Mattur Beardsell Ltd. is as follows:Mattur Beardsell Ltd. started business in 1936 and conducted operations successfully till 1970, when it faced financial problems. On 19.5.1977 a Resolution was passed to hive off its textile operati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)IIILLJ9SC; (2006)3MLJ311(SC); 2006(4)SCALE577; (2006)11SCC144; 2007(1)SLJ162(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Appellant herein is an employee of the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited (for short 'BISCOMAUN'). He had not been paid his salary from the month of January, 1996. He filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. No dispute was raised as regard his legal right to receive salary or the quantum thereof. On the aforementioned premise, a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 27.9.2000 while directing payment of salary to the Appellant herein observed:This Court is constrained to note here that admittedly the respondents are not in a position to pay even salary to the employees since October, 1995, such institution/ organization must not exist. In my opinion, all such institutions/ organizations must be immediately closed down by resorting to winding up proceeding in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mani Kant Pathak and Ors. v. the State of Bihar reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 664.However, in the counter a...
Tag this Judgment!